Replacement for Professor David Nutt said cannabis should be legalised

A former Oxford academic chosen to replace sacked Professor David Nutt as the head of the government's drugs advisory panel once called for the legalisation of cannabis.

Professor Les Iverson, a retired pharmacologist, has in the past mirrored Professor Nutts comments that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco and even called for the drug to be made legal.

He said: "Cannabis should be legalised not just decriminalised because it is comparatively less dangerous than legal drugs alcohol and tobacco."

Professor Iverson played down any potential clashes with Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, by suggesting the debate had moved on - and that he had changed his mind since his speech at a dinner in 2003 hosted by the Beckley Foundation, a charity in favour of regulating rather than banning drug use.

He said: "I don't remember saying that, it's certainly not my position now. That was a view I had in 2003 and a great deal has happened since then.

"We have now to confront the more potent forms of cannabis. We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness.

Prof Iverson, who has sat on the committee for five years, said much more active attention was currently being paid to so-called legal highs such as mephedrone.

"I'm not the drug adviser to the government, I'm a spokesman for a large group of people on the advisory council, only a few of whom are scientists."

In October, Mr Johnson sacked Prof Nutt for "crossing a line" into politics. Prof Nutt, who is setting up a rival think-tank, said he was simply reiterating scientific fact. Five other members on the panel subsequently resigned in protest and have yet to be replaced.

Professor Colin Blakemore, the neuroscientist, said Prof Iverson, a friend and former colleague, was conservative by nature but nevertheless shared the same views as his predecessor.

"I see no reason that Les Iverson's view on ecstasy deviates from the conclusions of the ACMD in that it should be classified as B rather than A.

"Similarly on cannabis that should have remained at C rather than being downgraded."

In the weeks that followed Prof Nutt's sacking, the home secretary tried to smooth over the row by making a number of concessions to his drugs advisers.

Mr Johnson agreed to write to panel members to explain any decisions that went against their advice. He also said he would not prejudge decisions on drug classification ahead of the committee issuing advice.

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Replacement-for-Professor-David-Nutt-said-cannabis-should-be-legalised.html

Drunk and overdosing homeless people put strain on NHS

One drunk or drug addicted homeless person is admitted to hospital every three hours, putting a severe strain on the National Health Service, new figures show.

The rate of drug and drink related admissions of homeless people has risen by 117 per cent since 2004, with six out of 10 hospital trusts reporting that numbers have gone up in the last five years.

Many of the rough sleepers had overdosed or suffered infections from using dirty needles to inject drugs such as heroin, while others needed their stomachs pumped after drinking too much.

The figures, contained in a series of answers to freedom of information requests put in to 173 hospital trusts, were released by the Conservatives, who issued a report setting out the importance of understanding the health needs of homeless people.

In particular, the party wants the availability of cheap alcohol in supermarkets to be curtailed, and for health boards to work with local homeless charities such as Shelter to consider the best ways to help homeless people in their area.

Grant Shapps, the shadow housing minister, said: "A refusal to confront the extent of the homlessness issue in the United Kingdom leaves our frontline services such as the NHS struggling to cope.

“Our report demonstrates how drugs and alcohol frequently play a major role in perpetuating the chaotic lives lived by many people trapped in homelessness. This is one of the reasons why Conservatives will fix the crazy situation whereby supermarkets are selling high strength larger for less than they charge for a bottle water."

The report shows that nearly 14,000 homeless people were admitted to hospital with drink and drug-related conditions in the last five years, the equivalent of eight a day or one rough sleeper every three hours.

London had the most admissions, followed by Liverpool and Leeds.

More than 10 per cent of rough sleepers who ended up in hospital for alcohol or drugs were under the age of 25, even though young people are estimated to account for between six and seven per cent of the homeless population.

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Drunk-and-overdosing-homeless-people-put-strain-on-NHS

NHS faces potentially serious problems from wrong prescriptions on the NHS

Patients face potentially serious problems because of the piecemeal training given to young NHS doctors in giving out prescriptions, claim medicine experts.

Junior doctors on average fill out five or six prescription forms during their whole time in medical school only to have to complete dozens on their first day on the wards.

The inadequate preparation helps contribute to almost one in 10 prescriptions containing errors that could harm patients, it was said.

Now the British Pharmacological Society (BPS) is calling on the doctors to take an exam called the National Prescribing Assessment before being qualified.

They also want a "prescribing simulator" to be introduced to the curriculum so that medics are better prepared when they start in hospitals.

Professor Simon Maxwell, chairman of the BPS, said: "Everybody thinks that the system should and can be overhauled.

"We would not accept this kind of error rate in other industries such as aviation. It is a recipe for problems."

The call for change, outlined in a blueprint by the BPS, comes after the General Medical Council revealed that 10 per cent of all prescriptions issued by doctors contained errors.

The mistakes included omitting drugs, wrong doses, not taking account of a patient's allergies, illegible handwriting or ambiguous orders.

When the hospital doctors were interviewed about their mistakes, some admitted that they used pharmacists or nurses as a "safety net" to correct them afterwards.

The most senior doctors made the fewest mistakes, while doctors in their second year after qualifying made the most, it was found.

In the study, 124,260 prescriptions were checked by pharmacists in 19 hospital trusts in north-west England and 11,077 errors were detected.

While doctors are trained in a "piecemeal way" on symptoms and treatments, they rarely actually fill out a prescription forms before they start work, said the BPS.

A recent survey showed that in training they filled out as little as one a year whereas on the job that jumped to 50 or 60 a day.

That meant that doctors were ill prepared, it concluded.

Prof Maxwell, and his chairman Dr Jeff Aronson, said that it was hoped that the new assessment would be ready for the 2011 intake of medical students.

It was also hoped that an online training programme - including a prescription simulator complete with virtual patients - would be ready by the following year.

Prof Maxwell said: "It doesn't take to much of a wrong dose or too long for the monitoring to be left before there are potentially serious problems. There is a big push now to eliminate this high risk."

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-faces-potentially-serious-problems-from-wrong-prescriptions-on-the-NHS

Labour doesn't want you to have a High Christmas as more legal drugs are banned

More legal high drugs are banned in UK by the nanny state as several drugs known as "legal highs" has come into force.

The substances, including GBL and BZP, become Class C drugs, with a possible two year jail sentence for possession.

Labour ministers moved to classify them after a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and fears they are a threat to user health.

GBL was linked to the death of medical student Hester Stewart, 21, in Brighton last April. Her mother, Maryon, campaigned nationally for the ban.

So called legal highs are typically man made chemical substances designed to act like banned drugs.

Scientists, officials and police officers have been concerned for several years that GBL, BZP and other so-called "legal highs" have been sold openly across Britain and on the internet, despite evidence that they can be harmful to health.

GBL, which metabolises in the body into the already banned drug GHB, will become a Class C drug carrying maximum jail terms of two years for possession and 14 years for supply.

Piperazines, of which BZP is the most popular, are also being made Class C drugs.

This group of drugs is popular on the club scene as an alternative to ecstasy and amphetamines.

Synthetic cannabis has also been banned and become a Class B drug. Possession of products such as "spice", a herbal mixture laced with psycho-active chemicals, now carries a maximum five-year jail term.

Fifteen anabolic steroids, associated with drug abuse in sport, have also been classified as Class C.

Police chiefs say their response will be proportionate and focused on dealers.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the government was committed to raising awareness of the dangers of psychoactive substances through its Frank campaign, but also wanted to send a clear message to those thinking of using the drugs.

"We are cracking down on so-called 'legal highs' which are an emerging threat, particularly to young people," said Mr Johnson.

"That is why we are making a range of these substances illegal from today with ground- breaking legislation which will also ban their related compounds."

Scientists at the Forensic Science Service laboratories have recently discovered that drug dealers in London have been using one of the newly-banned drugs to manufacture fake "crack cocaine".

Piperazines were first developed as a worming agent and are also used in some manufacturing processes. The FSS says "legal highs" based on the chemical have become more prevalent than ecstasy.

Friday's ban is unlikely to be the last. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will next year consider a new wave of so-called "legal highs", which are based on a group of chemicals known as cathinones.

However, the recent controversy over the sacking of the council's chairman, Professor David Nutt, and the subsequent resignation of council members in protest, could mean any final recommendations are delayed.

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8427439.stm

USA is legalising marijuana on the quiet

You know things are shifting in America when Fortune magazine, the bible for business journalism, runs a cover story titled “Is pot already legal?”. 

You also know it when Barack Obama’s Department of Justice publishes a long expected memo signalling that the federal government will no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries if they are legal under state law. That happened formally last month.

It was not, moreover, a symbolic gesture. Marijuana for medical reasons— to tackle chemotherapy- induced nausea or Aids-related wasting or glaucoma, among other conditions — is now legal in 13 states, including the biggest, California. 

Next year, 13 more states are planning referendums or new laws following suit. Last month a California legislative committee held the first hearings not simply on whether medical marijuana should remain legal, but on whether all marijuana should be decriminalised, full stop. The incentive? The vast amounts of money the bankrupt state could raise by taxing cannabis.

Now look at the polling on the question. In 1970, 84% of Americans supported keeping marijuana illegal. Today, that number has collapsed to 54%. The proportion believing that marijuana should be legal has gone from 18% at the end of the 1960s to 44% today. 

On current trends, a majority of Americans will favour legalisation by the end of Obama’s first term. In the western states, 53% already favour legalising and taxing the stuff. Support for legalisation is strongest among the young — the Obama generation — but has climbed among self-described Republicans as well.

But the reality is already ahead of the polls. Take a trip, so to speak, to Los Angeles today, where one would be forgiven for thinking that marijuana was already legal. There are more than 800 marijuana dispensaries in the city — and an estimated 7,000 in the state of California as a whole (many times more than in Holland).

Getting a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana is easier than getting health insurance — just look at the ads in the papers, where a consultation costs about $200. The dispensaries range from the dime store to elaborate palaces of capitalist taste. Seminars are held for entrepreneurs who want to start a business selling medical cannabis. On display are sophisticated strains that can provide exquisitely tailored effects: some best for countering nausea, some for building appetite, others for going to sleep, others for staying alert or for watching movies or for general relaxation.

The concentration of THC, the active compound, is much higher than in the past. But since no one has ever overdosed on marijuana, it’s difficult to say why that matters. Yes, if someone has a history of mental illness, it’s not that smart to experiment with the cannabinoid receptors in the brain. But it isn’t smart for such people to take any drugs — or too much alcohol — for that matter. For most people, stronger pot merely translates into a need for less of it to get the same effect. 

Too much and you’ll likely nod off — and wake up later with no hangover. If pubs served pot rather than beer, crime rates would plummet.

Americans, for whom the use of marijuana is almost a rite of passage in most colleges, know all this. And at some point they stopped pretending otherwise. The past three presidents smoked marijuana in their earlier days, even if only one has openly written about it. (Obama, when asked the Clinton question — if he had inhaled — responded: “I thought that was the point.”) In an online press conference with his younger supporters, the first question was about whether legalising and taxing pot would be a good thing to help raise revenues. Obama laughed it off. With an annual deficit of more than a trillion dollars, he may not be able to laugh it off much longer.

The key to the shift has been the emphasis on marijuana’s medical properties. Human beings have used marijuana as medicine for millennia. It was once sold in the States by Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical manufacturer. Allowing this compassionate use for a few soon revealed, accidentally, how harmless it is. It is not chemically addictive, although some mild withdrawal can happen if you are a regular pot-smoker and go cold turkey. 

Its side-effects are minimal compared with those of most authorised drugs for similar conditions. It is far less addictive than tobacco or alcohol. It leads to no measurable degree of antisocial behaviour, as is the case with, say, crystal meth or cocaine or heroin. Many of its users are successful, productive members of society who simply prefer it to alcohol as a relaxant in the evening or as a way to get through cancer treatment.

Denying Aids patients a tool to stay alive tips the balance. I have one friend who would never have been able to tolerate the medications that saved his life without it. That’s pretty persuasive stuff and lots of people have similar first-hand experiences. A gateway drug? Yes, many users of hard drugs smoked pot in the first place. 

But almost all started out with alcohol as well — and that is not illegal.

Of course, nothing is inevitable. The police still police it and hundreds of thousands of Americans — disproportionately black and poor — are in jail for it. Los Angeles’s failure to regulate adequately its hundreds of dispensaries may lead to connections with organised crime that could come back to delegitimise the whole thing.

I give it a couple of years to become a non-issue or to go into reverse. And my bet is that in a decade’s time, the banning of cannabis will seem as strange as the banning of alcohol. In the end, unnecessary prohibition undermines itself. And this time around, there are millions of cancer and HIV patients who are on the side of legalising and some truly desperate branches of government looking to see what they can tax next. In fact, I’ll go further: sooner rather than later, marijuana may be more acceptable than tobacco.

The need for taboos is eternal. But the object of the taboo is always shifting. The age of tobacco may be ending; and the millennium of marijuana may be about to begin.

From:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6897958.ece

Drug use in the City still a real problem

The use of alcohol and cocaine remains rife among City workers in spite of rising unemployment and lower wages following the credit crunch, leading physicians involved in the treatment of drug abusing professionals have warned.

Neil Brenner, medical director of Priory psychiatric hospital in north London, told the Financial Times that the number of bankers coming to him for treatment had risen significantly over the past three years, even when taking account of a large dip after the onset of the financial crisis in 2008. "I still think this is a real problem in the City," Dr Brenner said.

Earlier, Dr Brenner told MPs on the parliamentary home affairs committee that people working in financial services were more likely to run into problems with powdered cocaine abuse than other elements of society.

"They often have a high-pressure job and will often start using it not so much as a reward system but as a way to keep themselves going," he said.

Recent Home Office figures show that Britons are the biggest consumers of cocaine in Europe, with 1m people estimated to have taken the drug in the past year. About 12,000 people are being treated for their use of powdered cocaine.

Dr Brenner said the cocaine problem affected all echelons of the financial services industry, "from the chief executive all the way down to the postroom".

Nick Barton, chief executive of the Action on Addiction charity, which also runs treatment centres for addicts, agreed that he had seen "no kind of decrease" in the number of City cocaine users approaching his organisation for help. "This problem hasn't disappeared," he added.

The recent financial crisis might have added to the pressure on bank workers to use narcotics to lift productivity, Mr Barton said. "If people are going to have to work that much harder, cocaine will have its appeal as both an aide and a recreational tool," he said.

But the medical experts also said alcohol abuse remained a far greater problem among the professions than any other substance.

From:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cbc7bed0-c361-11de-8eca-00144feab49a.html

The evidence in favour of Prof Nutt- Financial Times Editorial

The UK government published a policy document committing itself to independent scientific advice in all departments, with an introduction by the prime minister proclaiming the “international respect” earned by the UK for “its thorough and professional approach to the use of evidence”. Only two days later Alan Johnson, home secretary, put that respect in jeopardy with an act of political clumsiness.

He sacked Professor David Nutt, a renowned neuropharmacologist, as chairman of the government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for insisting publicly that last year’s upgrade of cannabis to a Class B drug was not justified by the evidence. 

Two members of the council quit immediately in protest, more are threatening to follow – and the great and good of British science have lined up to attack the home secretary.

If Mr Johnson had thought through the consequences of his action, he would surely have consulted Lord Drayson, the science minister, and John Beddington, government chief scientist. They would have warned him of the outcry and dismay that Prof Nutt’s dismissal would cause.

At stake is not just the future of the ACMD, an important body that has helped to formulate drugs policy for more than 30 years, but as many as 80 other scientific councils and committees across government. These advise on everything from food and nutrition to climate change, and they depend on the unpaid part-time service of hundreds of scientists (mainly working in universities because industry researchers are often ignored for having alleged conflicts of interest). 

The volunteers may turn away from the system if they cannot express contrary views in public or if they see advice being rejected without good reason or even courtesy. Across the Atlantic, that sort of treatment gave George W. Bush’s administration a bad reputation with US scientists.

Indeed the row has implications beyond what most people would think of as science. Ultimately it is about the relationship between evidence and policy. 

Democratic governments always say they want to make “evidence-based policy”. The danger is that, when this does not suit them, they search for “policy-based evidence” – in other words picking out what supports their planned course of action and rejecting what does not. Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” are a prime example.

Of course scientific advice is not sacrosanct. Governments have the right to over-ride the evidence for broader policy reasons – but only if they do so openly and without gagging their advisers.

Mr Johnson is unlikely to pay a high political price for the Nutt affair, because the Conservative opposition, to its shame, supports the professor’s sacking. Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, wants to outdo Mr Johnson in his hard line on illegal drugs, whatever the evidence. Only the Liberal Democrats are prepared to take a broader (and wiser) view of the need to encourage experts to give governments independent advice.

From:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/379cbe88-c7e7-11de-8ba8-00144feab49a.html

Labour's drug policy up in smoke as scientists resign from drugs Council

Five scientists have now resigned from the labour Government's drugs advisory body Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in the wake of the sacking of Professor David Nutt, its chairman.

An ACMD insider said that the three members to quit were Dr Campbell, a former head of worldwide discovery at the drugs company Pfizer and a former President of the Royal Society of Chemistry; Dr Marsden, a research psychologist at the Institute of Psychiatry; and Mr Ragan, a pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry consultant. None of the three was available for comment.

The departures of Dr Campbell and Mr Ragan would be particularly damaging as this would leave the council without representation from the pharmaceutical industry, which is required by law. Professor Walker’s resignation had already left the council without a pharmacist, another required discipline.





The Home Office has confirmed the ACMD, which is down to 25 members, must have at least 20 members to function, and that six key positions must be filled for the advisory group to function.

Professor Nutt said “I’m not surprised. The way I have been treated was reprehensible, and I’m pleased to have the support of these other council members.”

The trio quit the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs following a crunch meeting with Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, who earlier this month told Prof Nutt to step down after criticising Government policy.

The meeting had been called because members of the advisory body wanted reassurances from the Home Secretary that they could continue in "good conscience" and that their advice would be respected.

The row erupted after Prof Nutt said the dangers of alcohol and tobacco were more serious than those posed by Ecstasy and LSD and criticised the decision to reclassify cannabis as class B, against ACMD advice.

Prior to the news that three more had gone, Mr Johnson said he had told the body that their views will be given "due weight" in future.

He said he stood by the decision to remove his chief drugs adviser but wanted to improve relations but was "very sorry" to lose Marion Walker and Dr Les King, who quit earlier this month.

Mr Johnson said: "I understand why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs were concerned about this.

"Their major concern – and the reason why two very good people who I'm very sorry to lose – was because they felt Prof Nutt was being dismissed for his views. I reassured them that was not the case."

He added: "There is a duty I think to accept that politicians make the final decision.

Mr Johnson said a joint code between Government and scientists, proposed by the Royal Society, was being considered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Government's chief scientific adviser.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "Whilst we backed the original decision, by now I would have expected the Home Secretary to be able to sit down with other members of the Council and rebuild confidence and stability in what they are doing. Quite clearly he has failed to do that.”

In a joint statement released by the Home Office, the meeting was described as "very constructive" but made no mention of any impending resignations.

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, said: “The latest resignations represent a deepening in the crisis of confidence of scientists in the Government — in particular, in the Home Secretary. That they come after Alan Johnson met the ACMD demonstrates that he just doesn’t get it when it comes to the importance of respecting the academic freedom and integrity of independent, unpaid, science advisers.

Ministers are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. The cost of the failure of the Home Secretary to understand the lessons of the BSE Inquiry will be poor policy — unless the Prime Minister acts decisively to bring the Home Office and rest of Government into line with established good practice.

“By clumsily and unfairly sacking David Nutt, Alan Johnson has been rewarded with five resignations in protest. That takes a certain kind of ineptitude.”

Health Direct has complied this post from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6470090/Three-more-drug-advisers-quit-over-David-Nutt-sacking.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6911558.ece

Professor Nutt- if we want to reduce deaths, alcohol and heroin are the issues

Having been sacked from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), Professor David Nutt talks to the Telegraph.

On Saturday evening, two days after he was sacked from his position as drugs tsar for saying that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol, Professor David Nutt went to a brass band concert in his local church in Keynsham, outside Bristol. "I came in late and sneaked in the back," he says, "but in the interval, the Master of Ceremonies announced I was there. The news was greeted by an amazing round of applause."

So his neighbours are fond of him: no surprise, since this Nutt's tough outer shell seems to hide a friendly father-of-four humanity. But that's missing the point. "The youngest person there was 50. Many were 85." To Nutt, this says it all. Not only is he – as he puts it – "on the side of the angels" in the clash between science and politics, he also believes that he is more in touch than the politicians with even the most conservative of rural electorates.

The past week has not been short of similarly morale-boosting moments. Emails have flooded his in-box – 98 per cent supportive. Ten thousand people have pledged their support on Facebook. Two fellow scientists on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) have resigned in sympathy. Teenagers, who normally don't even notice what's in the news, are rallying to the cause – to judge from the unusually high level of debate in my own home. My own teenagers, however, abruptly changed their views when they heard some of his suggestions for stopping them wrecking their livers.

Most encouraging of all to him, scientists are leading a march on Downing Street this Sunday, calling on the Government to "back evidence-based drug policy by respecting and upholding the independence of the ACMD" in advance of the Council's meeting next Tuesday. If he had taken a hallucinogen, Nutt couldn't have asked for more.

Far from repenting the remarks that caused Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, to think Nutt had "crossed the line" between advice and policy – which he surely did – the beaming professor of neuropsychopharmacology is loving every moment of his disgrace. Academics don't usually become folk heroes. Nor do they generally manage to attract more than 30-second news clips. But these days his phone is ringing non-stop with requests for his wisdom from around the globe. "Sorry, it's Radio Bogota,"he says, as his mobile trills yet again.

Nutt enjoys speaking out: earlier this year he pointed out that "Equasy" as he called it – horse riding – was more dangerous than Ecstasy. Having devised a "matrix of harm" – a graph to calculate the damage done by various substances, on the basis of dependence, and physical and social harm – he's delighted to have been handed a platform from which to preach.

The big problem, as he sees it, is that while politicians love to be "tough" on classified drugs, their response to the far greater danger posed by the most dangerous drug of all, alcohol, has been "puny".

"We are not taking the tidal wave of damage seriously enough. If we want to reduce deaths, alcohol and heroin are the issues. I have four children, now aged 18 to 26, and at almost every party they went to in their teenage years, a child was taken to hospital with alcohol poisoning.

"Liver disease will become a worse killer than heart disease within twenty years. Scotland already has the highest proportion of people with sclerosis of the liver in the world. There are hundreds of kids lying in hospital beds waiting for transplants that will never come. But when Sir Liam Donaldson [the Government's chief medical adviser] put forward a radical approach to reduce alcohol consumption by increasing the price, within seconds the government rejected his proposal."

Nutt is not a puritan. He confesses to "liking" alcohol, to having binged occasionally when he was young, and to having tried some drugs as a student – but not cannabis, because he has never smoked. The worst problem with alcohol, he says, is that it is "insidious": people develop a strong head and aren't aware of its toxicity. But the main issue is that moderation doesn't seem to be possible for many people, especially the young.

He has asked his own children why their friends set out to get wasted and break the windows of the Keynsham church. "They say it is the excitement of not knowing what will happen."

His matrix isn't going to stop them experimenting, so what would positive action should politicians take, short of sacking their advisers? "We cannot make alcohol illegal. We need a structural approach. The real price of alcohol has dropped by half since Labour came to power and the use has doubled. To bring consumption down, prices should be doubled, maybe tripled, and the drink-driving limit should be reduced. We could even change the age at which it is legal to start drinking. In the US, since most states switched back from 18 to 21 (in the late 1980s), 170,000 lives have been saved in road traffic accidents. A shifting of the starting age would also reduce the damage to brain and body and the likelihood of young people becoming dependent."

Nutt pauses for effect before offering his most "radical" solution of all: an alternative to alcohol that's safer. Yuck, I don't want to take a soma pill when I get back from work; I want a delicious glass of white wine.

"Aaah, but if we invested some work in it we might find something as delicious. As it stands, though, with the Misuse of Drugs Act, if I came up with it tomorrow, I couldn't sell it. I'd like there to be a prize for inventing a safe alternative, as there was for inventing the chronometer in the 18th century, and the prize would be being allowed to sell it. You could also design an antagonist that would reverse the effects. Science could get there in five to 10 years. Let's move on from 2,000 years of poisoning ourselves."

That's what people thought they had found in cannabis, which makes you light-headed but not likely to get into fights or drive too fast. Forty years on from the Summer of Love, however, everyone knows someone whose brain has turned to mush or, worse, has become psychotic. Yet he opposes plans to reclassify cannabis from B to C, even though "skunk" – one of several cannabis derivatives – is now so much more powerful than standard "weed".

"Stoned people aren't a danger to others," he says. "Classifying it as B will be a disaster, because anyone caught in possession three times can be sent to prison for five years. The prison population will increase, those people will find it hard to get jobs. That way you just add to the underclass and the tax burden."

Sunday's march on Downing Street is emphatically not calling for legalisation. Although legislation might be a logical next step, Nutt is supportive. "It [legislation] would increase use. And I could never countenance the marketing of drugs, as with alcohol and tobacco. But I would like some level of toleration, as in the Netherlands, where cannabis can be smoked in certain cafés and a small amount bought for use off the premises: that has reduced social harm because it makes the drug less appealing. It is no longer a statement of dissent. Many other European countries have moved away from criminalisation for personal possession. In Portugal, people found with cannabis are now sent to social workers; use has gone down."

Nutt cites a MORI poll conducted by the ACMD that suggests most British people don't want stoned youths imprisoned. But, he adds, it's wrong to see him as soft on all drugs because, during his ten years as the Council's chair, he has been the "biggest criminaliser of drugs".

In that time, a host of new ones have been classified, including ketamine and GBL, the party drug that killed medical student Hester Stewart this May. He has also moved Crystal Meth from Class B to Class A, thereby allowing the police to shut down houses where it is produced. Another source of pride is the containment of Aids due to moving heroin addicts onto Methadone.

It all comes back to his matrix of harm. No one much knew of it before; now we do. Outside the ACMD, Nutt may turn out to have more clout than he ever did as an insider. Next Tuesday's meeting may or may result in a mass resignation, but the sacking of Nutt could be a turning point for so-called independent advisory bodies that are allowed to say what they like, providing it fits with Government policy.

Among the many messages of support have been several from people who want scientists to advise on the damage done by the various drugs in circulation, and are willing to fund it.

"I'm hoping," says Nutt, "that we can create a separate, independent scientific body that can take this out of party politics. Then we can monitor drugs and the Government can decide policy." Alan Johnson might agree with him there.

From:

http://www.telegraph.Professor-Nutt-If-we-want-to-reduce-deaths-alcohol-and-heroin-are-the-issues

Science minister calls on Brown to reverse Johnson's big mistake

The labour Government was bitterly divided last night over the sacking of the Home Office’s chief drugs adviser after its Science Minister said that he was appalled by Alan Johnson’s decision.

Lord Drayson, the Science and Innovation Minister, wrote to No 10 asking if the Prime Minister could undo the Home Secretary’s decision to dismiss David Nutt.

He said that he had not been consulted by Mr Johnson before Professor Nutt was sacked for having said that alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than Ecstasy and LSD, and for questioning the decision to downgrade cannabis. 

In an e-mail to Nick Butler, the Prime Minister’s policy adviser, Lord Drayson wrote: “Alan did this without letting me know and giving me a chance to persuade him. It’s a big mistake. Is Gordon able to get Alan to undo this? As ‘science champion in Government’, I can’t just stand aside on this one.”

According to The Sun, which obtained a series of e-mails written by Lord Drayson, the minister said he was “pretty appalled” at the decision.

Last night Lord Drayson said: “My comments in the e-mail exchange were my immediate reaction to what had happened, without full knowledge of all the facts. I talked to Alan Johnson and he has assured me of the importance he attaches to scientific advice and his respect for scientific advice while being the person who has to make the final difficult decision.”

The resignation of a key member of Britain’s drugs advisory panel after the sacking of Professor Nutt has left ministers powerless to develop or update drugs policy.

The departure of Marion Walker from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) means that it no longer has a pharmacist representative on the board, contravening its statutory requirements, The Times has learnt.

Mr Johnson is to hold urgent talks with members of the ACMD, who wrote to him yesterday expressing “serious concerns” about the council’s relationship with Government.

It also emerged that the Home Office has started a review of the ACMD to look at whether it is accountable, if it is “discharging its functions” properly and if it continues to represent value for money. The review, which was launched last month and also covers the Animal Procedures Committee, is being conducted by Sir David Omand, a former permanent secretary.

The ACMD is responsible for reviewing all issues of drug misuse and advising Government on abuse, dependency and related social problems.

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Home Secretary is not permitted to amend the classification of any drug, including adding new ones to the list, “except after consultation with or on the recommendation of the advisory council”.

The law requires that six of council members represent particular fields, with Ms Walker the sole pharmacy specialist. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said that ministers risked losing the confidence of expert advisers across government unless they confirm their independence after the sacking. 

He said that the dismissal of the chief drugs adviser had created an “incredibly regrettable situation that has a potentially negative effect on the relationship between scientists and the Government”.

Sir Leszek, who heads a body that spent £704 million of public money on research in 2008-09, is the highest-ranking scientist on the government payroll to speak out so far over the Nutt affair.

From:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6900121.ece

Sacked – for telling the truth about drugs

Labour fires top adviser Prof Nutt for challenging its hardline policy on cannabis and ecstasy.

The labour Government's drugs tsar was sacked for stating his view that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol.

The Home Secretary Alan Johnson asked Professor David Nutt to resign as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), saying he had "lost confidence" in his ability to give impartial advice.

But Professor Nutt, who is head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol, retaliated, accusing the Government of "misleading" the pubic in its messages about drugs and of "Luddite" tendencies.

He was backed by other senior scientists and politicians.

Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said: "The Government cannot expect the experts who serve on its independent committees not to voice their concern if the advice they give is rejected even before it is published. "I worry that the dismissal of Professor Nutt will discourage academic and clinical experts from offering their knowledge and time to help the Government in the future."

Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, where Professor Nutt made his comments, said: "I'm dismayed that the Home Secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is that, when it comes to the Home Office's relationship with the research community, honest researchers should be seen but not heard." He added it was "a bad day for science and for the cause of evidence-informed policy making".

Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year, was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year. He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 from ever using" the drug.

Most drugs experts believe his analysis is right. But ministers did not want to hear the truth or at least to be reminded of it repeatedly. 

The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us. The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed scientific appraisal.

"Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite attitude of governments towards science."

He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that parents should be more worried about alcohol.

"The greatest concern to parents should be that their children do not get completely off their heads with alcohol because it can kill them ... and it leads them to do things which are very dangerous, such as to kill themselves or others in cars, get into fights, get raped, and engage in other activities which they regret subsequently. My view is that, if you want to reduce the harm to society from drugs, alcohol is the drug to target at present."

In a recent broadside, Professor Nutt accused Jacqui Smith, who oversaw the reclassification of cannabis from Class C to Class B, of "distorting and devaluing" scientific research. He said her decision to reclassify cannabis as a "precautionary step" sent mixed messages and undermined public faith in government science.

"I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm. We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."

The Home Office said Mr Johnson had written to Professor Nutt expressing "surprise and disappointment" over his remarks. Mr Johnson said in the letter that Professor Nutt had gone beyond providing evidence to "lobbying" for changes to policy. He said: "As Home Secretary it is for me to make decisions, having received advice from the [Council] ... It is important that the Government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them ... I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities."

The shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: "This was an inevitable decision after his latest ill-judged contribution to the debate, but it is a sign of lack of focus at the Home Office that it didn't act sooner, given that he has done this before."

But Phil Willis, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said: "I am writing immediately to the Home Secretary to ask for clarification as to why Sir David Nutt has been relieved of duties as chair of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs at a time when independent scientific advice to Government is essential. It is disturbing if an independent scientist should be removed for reporting sound scientific advice."

Claudia Rubin from Release – a national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law – said the expert should not have been penalised. "It's a real shame and a real indictment of the Government's refusal to take any proper advice on this subject," she said.

From:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sacked-ndash-for-telling-the-truth-about-drugs-1812255.html

Health Direct notes that it is hard not to suspect that Professor Nutt's real crime in the eyes of the labour Government was not his interference in politics but the fact that his words embarrassed ministers.

But why now? Health Direct posted on August 02, 2006 Prof Nutt's orginal research Risks of taking drugs compared- Scientific review of dangers of drugtaking- Drugs, the real deal

Health Direct reproduces the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society. It was devised by government advisers - then ignored by ministers because of its controversial findings. The analysis was carried out by David Nutt, a senior member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council. Copies of the report have been submitted to the Home Office, which has failed to act on the conclusions.

Since then Prof Nutt was promoted by labour to be chairman of the govt's Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs. So his research and opinions were in the public domain- and presumably approved of when he was promoted. Ergo, why the fuss now? He's not saying anything new. Just common sense.

High society- Britain's drug taking clubbers pt 2

The first wideranging academic study of clubbers’ behaviour in a decade, indicates that thousands of apparently successful, healthy and economically active people in their twenties, thirties and forties choose to be heavy recreational drug users at the weekend.

With permission from club proprietors, Measham and Moore did their fieldwork in Manchester, the epitome of the 24-hour party city. They set up a website to verify their work to clubbers, then interviewed them at the start of the evening before the drugs had made revellers too intoxicated.

One of the fundamental ironies the research uncovered is that because recreational drug users fuel the economy and cause few social problems — violent crime, aggression and antisocial behaviour are much more likely to be alcohol-related and occur outside pubs — they fail to get the support and services they need.

“There is a lack of knowledge about the types of drugs, a lack of accurate, non-judgmental and non-sensationalist information for these users,” says Moore, a lecturer in criminology. “Ketamine, for instance, does not go well with alcohol. Nor does GBL [which coverts to GHB in the body], which is widely used as an industrial cleaner, and is not illegal. I’ve been working with one man who had a serious daily dependency on GBL, but the doctors simply didn’t know what to do with him.”

Here too is highlighted another contradiction: between the growing commercialisation of the night-time economy and the increasing government policy of what Measham calls “the criminalisation of intoxication” without education, advice or treatment services attached. The people who suffer, under the present situation of tacit tolerance of drugs, are the users. “Even if the club owners wanted harmreduction literature in their club, it would acknowledge that there was drug taking on the premises. And they are concerned about being arrested or shut down.”

Last year the owner of the Dance Academy in Plymouth, Manoucehr Bahmanzadeh, and its manager, Tom Costelloe, were found guilty of allowing the venue to be used for the supply of Ecstasy and jailed for nine years and five years respectively. This despite neither man having actually sold drugs on the premises.

What is important, Measham and Moore say, is to draw the distinction between this kind of recreational drug use, and the problem drug use that dominates the political agenda and absorbs its resources. The two groups do not overlap; the dealers are different; and so are the drugs. 

Clubbers almost never take heroin or crack cocaine, the academics’ surveys show, and they remain in society. The UK’s problem drug users, with a daily dependency on such drugs, may be hugely outnumbered by the recreational drug takers — 150,000 as opposed to four million — but they remain the focus of government policy.

To use the phraseology of Russell Newcombe, a drug researcher for Lifeline Manchester, drugs represent “cocktails of celebration” for one group. For the other, they are a “cocktail of oblivion”. And the difference is profound.

Significantly, however, trends are changing. Recent analysis from the NHS’s National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse shows 22 per cent fewer young adults with a drug problem are using heroin and crack, and the number of under-25s seeking treatment for dependency on cocaine has risen 11 per cent.

To visit a club is to witness striking inconsistencies in the way that society deals with drugs. It is amusing to see a line of people, most of who have taken illegal drugs, queueing politely to get outside to the smoking area to consume a drug that is banned inside.

The lack of focus, criminal and otherwise, on recreational drugs means the risks to clubbers are going largely unassessed. Measham and Moore are concerned about the health impact from the new fashion for mixing drugs. The outcry over the death of Leah Betts appears not to have checked universal acceptance of Ecstasy, although there have been more than 200 Ecstasyrelated deaths in the UK since 1996. Many younger clubbers, the academics discovered, are ignorant of the fact that the increasingly popular MDMA powder is pure Ecstasy; and few are aware that ketamine is dangerous when mixed with alcohol.

“We would like to see a sensible debate about drugs without the shock, horror bit — if only because of the sheer numbers we see involved,” says Measham. “People have a desire to get intoxicated on a Friday night — the American pharmacologist Ronald Siegel once described intoxication as the fourth strongest irrepressable human desire after food, sleep and sex.

“That suggests that blanket prohibition is destined to be a disaster. We need a more sophisticated but also more realistic response. If people have a choice they don’t really want to break the law. That’s where the debate needs to take place.”

98 per cent of club customers had tried an illegal drug at least once
79 per cent had taken an illegal drug within the previous month
Only half as many bar customers (35 per cent) had taken an illegal drug in the previous month
85 per cent of clubbers had tried Ecstasy at least once
83 per cent had tried cocaine at least once
44 per cent had tried ketamine at least once
40 per cent had tried MDMA at least once

From:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6879862.ece

High society- Britain's drug taking clubbers

Almost all Britain’s thousands of clubbers routinely take drugs, in particular cocaine , cannabis and ecstasy.

The first wideranging academic study of clubbers’ behaviour in a decade, released this month, indicates that thousands of apparently successful, healthy and economically active people in their twenties, thirties and forties choose to be heavy recreational drug users at the weekend.

Not only do the findings suggest almost ubiquitous drug use in and around Britain’s clubs, in particular cannabis, cocaine and Ecstasy, but they point to the emergence of new substances on the pharmaceutical block, such as ketamine and GHB, being used increasingly by clubbers as part of assorted drug “repertoires” at the weekends.

Ketamine, a Class C drug, is an anaesthetic, sometimes used on animals, which causes temporary hallucinations. GHB — gammahydroxybutrate — is also Class C and produces a feeling of euphoria. Both can be dangerous, powerful drugs.

Dr Fiona Measham and Dr Karenza Moore, criminologists from Lancaster University, set out to explore the hidden world of pharmaceutical intoxication in Britain’s bars and night clubs. What they found, in the most thorough examination ever undertaken of drugs across the British night-time economy, was extraordinary.

They discovered evidence that almost all Britain’s thousands of clubbers routinely take drugs, in particular cocaine (tried by 83 per cent of people), cannabis (93 per cent) and ecstasy (85 per cent). Eight in ten had taken a drug within the previous month, and nearly two in three of those questioned had taken, or were going to take, drugs on the night they were surveyed.

These statistics, published in the journal Criminology and Criminal Justice, demonstrate how drug-enduced dancing and socialising has become a significant part of modern culture, albeit taking place “under the radar” with the tacit acceptance of police, politicians and economists.

Indeed, the figures indicate that much of Britain’s burgeoning night time economy, worth as much as £30 billion, and employing about one million people, is inextricably linked to the night long consumption of illegal drugs. 

The trend is such that the main clubbing nights have been moved from Saturdays to Fridays specifically to allow people to recover in time for work or lectures on Monday morning.

The extent and complexity of drug use that the academics uncovered surprised them. “Everyone knows that it goes on,” says Measham, a senior lecturer in criminology, whose 2001 study Dancing on Drugs was until now the seminal study of recreational drug use. “How else would the clubbers stay awake until 5am, when the club closes? But it’s unspoken.

“Drug taking is implicitly facilitated but it’s the individual who takes the risks. And there are risks — the implications of having a criminal record on your career, for one, and the health aspects.

“One of the big surprises was the scale of polydrug use [the taking of several substances]. Fifteen years ago people would take an Ecstasy tablet or two and a wrap of speed; now they are taking a whole range of drugs without knowing what the impact is of these polydrug cocktails. We just don’t know about ketamine and GHB. We’re seeing a lot more use of both drugs. Ketamine has not displaced Ecstasy but it has been added to the repertoire.”

From:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6879862.ece

Health Direct will be posting the second part of this research tomorrow.

Doctors urge ban on alcohol advertising

Doctors have called for a total ban on alcohol advertising, including happy hours and sponsorship of music and sporting events.

A tough package of measures is needed to "tackle the soaring cost of alcohol related harm" in Britain, said a report from the British Medical Association (BMA).

Young people are particularly affected by such advertising, which encourages them to binge-drink and stock up on cheap alcopops, it said.

The BMA also renewed its calls for a minimum price to be set per unit of alcohol, for alcohol to be taxed at a higher rate than inflation and for a ban on two-for-one offers.

It follows a report last year from the union which said there should be a curb on the sale of cut-price alcohol, such as in supermarkets.

The latest study - Under The Influence - said alcohol consumption in the UK has "increased rapidly" in recent years among all age groups.

It blames advertising and heavy discounting, the availability of cheap alcohol and 24-hour licensing laws.

The report said: "The population is drinking in increasingly harmful ways and the result is a plethora of avoidable medical, psychological and social harm, damaged lives and early deaths.

"As consumption has increased, so the market for alcohol has grown. In 2007, sales (including supermarket, off-licence, restaurant and bar sales) were high enough to put virtually every British adult over Government guideline drinking levels.

"These sales are driven by vast promotional and marketing campaigns that dwarf health promotion efforts: the UK alcohol industry spends approximately £800 million each year encouraging consumption of its wares."

The report said current controls on promoting alcohol are "completely inadequate" because they are based on voluntary agreements with the industry and focus on their content, rather than the amount of alcohol advertising.

"Even in their control of content the rules are weak with, for example, prohibitions on advertising which associates drink with youth culture or sporting success sitting alongside alcohol sponsorship of iconic youth events like music festivals and premiership football."

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the BMA, said the body was not "anti-alcohol" but doctors were right to focus on the health of their patients.

She added: "Over the centuries, alcohol has become established as the country's favourite drug.

"The reality is that young people are drinking more because the whole population is drinking more and our society is awash with pro-alcohol messaging and marketing. In treating this we need to look beyond young people and at society as a whole."

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), alcohol is the leading risk factor for premature death and disability in developed countries after smoking and high blood pressure.

It is related to more than 60 medical conditions, costs the NHS millions of pounds every year and is linked to crime and domestic abuse, the report said.

Professor Gerard Hastings, who was an author on the study, said: "Given the alcohol industry spends £800 million a year in promoting alcohol in the UK, it is no surprise that we see it everywhere - on TV, in magazines, on billboards, as part of music festival or football sponsorship deals, on internet pop-ups and on social networking sites.

"Given adolescents often dislike the taste of alcohol, new products like alcopops and toffee vodka are developed and promoted as they have greater appeal to young people.

Don Shenker, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said: "There's no longer any doubt - the heavy marketing and promotion of alcohol, combined with low prices - are encouraging young people to drink at a level our health services are struggling to cope with."

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Doctors-urge-ban-on-alcohol-advertising

Given that the labour govt actively promotes alcolohol drinking via extended drinking hours and that they ignored scientific advice about the dangers of alchohol Health Direct wonders if MPs will once again ignore qualified practitioners- see yesterday's post and  Risks of taking drugs compared- Scientific review of dangers of drugtaking- Drugs, the real deal when Health Direct reproduced the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society. 

It was devised by labour government advisers - then ignored by ministers because of its controversial findings. The analysis was carried out by David Nutt, a senior member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council. Copies of the report have been submitted to the Home Office, which has failed to act on the conclusions.

Jack Straw wants legal heroin as Health Sec's son is charged for cocaine possession

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, has called for the NHS to give out heroin on prescription to addicts where other forms of treatment have failed whilst the former health secretary Patricia Hewitt’s 21-year old son Nicholas has been charged with possessing cocaine.

Justice secretary Jack Straw has called for imaginative solutions to tackling to the problems of drug addiction

He called for “imaginative” solutions to hard-drug abuse and said there could be “huge benefits” to issuing the drug to chronic addicts.

At the moment addicts can be prescribed heroin substitutes designed to wean them off the drug, but the idea of prescribing the drug itself is aimed at keeping long-term addicts away from drug dealers and crime.

“For the most problematic heroin users it may be the best means of reducing the harm they do themselves, and of stamping out the crime and disorder they inflict on the community," said Mr Straw.

The Justice Secretary is the first cabinet minister to get involved in the debate following the results of a pilot scheme involving 127 heroin addicts in three cities, published last week.

The trial, which involved users injecting themselves under medical supervision in London, Brighton and Darlington, showed that crimes committed by addicts who had been prescribed heroin dropped by two thirds after six months.

Mr Straw said prescription heroin was “no magic bullet” but claimed it could reduce the £15 billion a year cost of the abuse of hard drugs.

The trials were set up in 2002 by David Blunkett, the then home secretary, but Mr Straw is the first cabinet minister to endorse prescribing the drug.

Harry Shapiro of Drugscope, which represents 800 drug projects, said: "It's important to do everything possible to discourage Britain's 300,000 problem drug users from injecting their drugs, and we should allow injecting heroin users to be provided with foil as part of a harm-reduction programme."

From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Jack-Straw-calls-for-heroin-on-prescription

Meanwhile, Nicholas Hewitt Birtles, a sales rep, was arrested when police raided a car parked near his home in Camden, north London, on Saturday evening, Scotland Yard said.

Officers observed three men sitting inside the vehicle parked in Camden Square and went to investigate at about 7.45pm.

They searched the car and allegedly recovered a small amount of white powder, arresting two of the occupants while the third was allowed to go.

The pair were taken to a nearby police station for questioning.

Mr Hewitt Birtles, whose father is Judge William Birtles, was later charged with possessing cocaine while the other man, who has not been named, was released on bail while tests are carried out on the powder.

The former Cabinet minister’s son was released on Sunday but ordered to appear in court next week. His friend is to answer police bail next month.

Australian-born Miss Hewitt, who served as Trade and Industry Secretary before moving to the Department of Health, left the Government in 2007 and is stepping down as an MP at the next election.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “Nicholas Hewitt Birtles, a sales representative of NW1, is bailed to appear before Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on Sept 30 charged with possession of a class A drug, namely cocaine, on Saturday Sept 19 at Camden Square.

From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Patricia-Hewitts-son-Nicholas-charged-with-cocaine-possession

Health Direct has long question the "logic" of labour's drugs policy.

On August 02, 2006 we posted: Risks of taking drugs compared- Scientific review of dangers of drugtaking- Drugs, the real deal

Health Direct reproduced the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society. It was devised by government advisers - then ignored by ministers because of its controversial findings. The analysis was carried out by David Nutt, a senior member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council. Copies of the report have been submitted to the Home Office, which has failed to act on the conclusions.

Why it’s time to end the war on drugs

The director of public health for Cumbria, Professor John Ashton, startled a room full of local delegates at a conference entitled “Tackling Drugs, Changing Lives” by calling for total legalisation. “The war on drugs has failed,” he said. “We need to think differently.” He said that heroin, and everything else now banned, should be available over the counter in chemists’ shops.

At any rate, he certainly startled the reporter from the Carlisle News & Star who made a splendid splash with the story, giving just a paragraph to the counter-argument from Detective Superintendent Paul Carter of Cumbria Police. “Class A drugs destroy the fabric of people’s lives,” he responded.

“We have to do everything we can to get people away from drugs like heroin and cocaine.” Well, “Cop Backs Drug Laws” hardly sounds like news, does it? But actually it is Carter who seems increasingly out of step.

For decades many academics and professionals have regarded the current blanket prohibition on recreational drugs (though not alcohol or tobacco) as absurd, counter-productive and destructive. But there has never been any political imperative for change, and a thousand reasons to do nothing.

For nearly 40 years, since the habits established in the 1960s took root in society, there has been a stand-off. Across the free world, and most of the unfree, anyone ­seriously interested in smoking, snorting, swallowing or injecting illegal substances can acquire the wherewithal with a little effort, and proceed without much fear of retribution, particularly if they are wealthy enough.

Police and politicians say they are ­interested in punishing the suppliers and not the users. This is an intellectual nonsense, but it has suited everyone who matters. The drug users don’t care; governments have felt no ­pressure to attempt a politically dangerous reform; and above all it suits the international gangsters who control the drug business, which offers massive rewards and – for them – minimal risks.

But 2009 has seen a change: among the academics and professionals who study this issue, from Carlisle Racecourse to the think-tanks of ­Washington, there is growing sense that reform is possible and increasingly urgent.

The argument is not that drug use is A Good Thing. It is that the collateral damage caused by the so-called war on drugs has now reached catastrophic proportions. And even some politicians have started to think this might be worth discussing.

The biggest single reason (as with so much else this year) is the Obama Effect. In one way, this may be short-lived since the president’s reputation will eventually be tarnished by ­reality. But the chief barrier to reform has been that the international agreements barring the drugs trade have been enforced primarily by threats of retaliation from the White House.

Obama is the third successive president believed to have used illegal drugs: Bill Clinton famously did not inhale; in a conversation that was secretly taped when he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush didn’t deny that he had smoked marijuana or used cocaine; Obama has admitted using both dope and “a little blow”.

Unlike the other two, he is also on record as favouring decriminalisation of cannabis and more generally addressing the problem. The president having other preoccupations, there is no sign of him proposing the Do What The Hell You Like Bill to Congress any time soon. There is every sign that the blanket ban on other people’s initiatives has been partially lifted.

Obama has also come to power amid a growing sense of alarm about the US prison population. Nearly four million Americans are either physically in jail (including almost 5 per cent of all black males) or under some form of state or federal jurisdiction. About 20 per cent of these are listed as having committed drug offences.

But this must be a gross underestimate of reality. I recently asked a British judge what percentage of the defendants in his court were there for drugs-related crimes: not just direct breaches of the drug laws, but also crimes committed by those whose behaviour was affected by drug use or who were trying to obtain money to buy them.

He thought for a moment then said: “Sixty per cent. And most of the rest involve alcohol.” We may assume that, in the more drug-pervasive ­American culture, the figure would be higher than this.

At the same time, Americans have seen on the nightly news the brutal wars between ­Mexican drug gangs reach their border. And afterwards they have watched The Wire, which has given them a serious dose of daily inner city reality. Some observers see the collective shrug that greeted the admission of dope-smoking by the ­Olympic swimming hero Michael Phelps as a sign that ­attitudes are changing in middle America.

What would be less clear to TV watchers is the extent to which, under harsh and prescriptive sentencing guidelines, the wrong criminals are locked up. According to Sanho Tree of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington: “There have been judges who’ve been literally in tears because they have been forced to sentence girlfriends of low-level dealers to 20 years. Perhaps they fielded a call for their boyfriends. And then the kingpin walks out in six months depending on how much ­information they’ve given.”

Attitudes are certainly changing elsewhere. Several countries, especially in South America, are starting to flirt with liberalisation – Portugal decriminalised all drug use in 2001 and the policy is said to have widespread acceptance. Now the former president of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, has called for the decriminalisation of cocaine and says that many serving politicians quietly agree with him.

The South American shift ties in with a growing belief that the US-backed policy of coca eradication has been useless – if the crop disappears from one remote valley, it pops up in another. Meanwhile, the once trumpeted poppy-eradication mission in Afghanistan is increasingly perceived as a strategy that could strengthen the Taliban by curbing overproduction.

“We’re fighting over minimally processed agricultural commodities,” says Tree. “Heroin, cocaine and marijuana are incredibly cheap to produce. There is an inexhaustible resource of poor farmers to grow these crops and an undiminished supply of consumers. The more we increase law enforcement the greater the risk-reward for the traffickers. It’s an exercise in futility.”

Tree is by no means a lone voice in the Washington policy nexus. Jim Webb, ­the Democratic senator for Virginia, said in April that the issue of marijuana legalisation should be “on the table”. There is interest too from rightwing libertarians such as the Texas congressman and sometime presidential candidate Ron Paul. Indeed a leading pro-reform voice in Washington is the Cato Institute, usually associated with the Republicans. And the campaign is backed by well-organised pressure groups.

It is hard to find coherent advocates on the other side of the argument. On the web, I came across Drug Watch International, based in Omaha, promising “current information … to counter drug ­advocacy propaganda”.

The lead item on its site dates from 2002. I did track down its president, Dr John Coleman, formerly an undercover agent at what is now the Drug Enforcement Administration. He proved an ­amiable interviewee who offered me an intriguingly contrarian defence of the American alcohol prohibition years: unpopular though the law was, ­­­drink-related diseases fell. The drug prohibition, he felt, also worked.

“In the US, the levels of drug use in most categories are lower than in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. There’s a lot of social change, a lot of ageing out,” he said. “We have a more intelligent law enforcement system. The confiscation laws are very effective. I don’t think we should be surprised if public policies work. We do have drug problems, I’m not minimising them. But if we ignore the progress we’ve made, we’re short-changing ourselves.”

It is the practical men who seem most disposed to support the status quo. The most eloquent I discovered was back in Carlisle – Paul Carter, the cop at the racecourse conference. “I joined the police 28 years ago and I went to the deaths of many young people who had overdosed on heroin, particularly, and each one is an utter tragedy. I think there are fewer now and that we are beginning to make a difference.

“There’s a cycle of life when you’re on heroin when you’re either asleep or not aware of what’s going on around you. If society sanctioned that effect on another generation, what does that say about us all?”

The policy wonks arguing for change have not, as a rule, attended a dead body in a dingy flat, but the macro-argument tends to lead in another direction even among senior police officers like Norm Stamper, the former police chief of Seattle, who told The New York Times: “We’ve spent a ­trillion dollars prosecuting the war on drugs. What do we have to show for it? Drugs are more readily available, at lower prices and higher levels of potency. It’s a dismal failure.”

The drug laws were dingy from the start: Congress made marijuana illegal in 1937 after a farcical debate, due to pressure from ­western farmers who wanted their Mexican labourers to work harder. The user community keeps discovering “legal highs”, governments promptly ban them whereupon their popularity increases.

In Britain, there is something close to despair among academics about the political process. Drugs are classified A, B and C, allegedly according to the degree of harm. But the theory ignores the immutable constitutional provision that laws are subject to the approval of the editor of the Daily Mail. Cannabis was downgraded from B to C and then back again, to meet the government’s political needs; this had no effect on either ­suppliers or users.

Ecstasy (which alarms the Mail) is deemed a class A drug, the most dangerous rating, although – according to a major study published by The Lancet in 2007 – it ranks 18th in degree of harm among 20 well-known substances, ahead only of poppers and khat (both legal) and well behind alcohol and tobacco (ditto).

“We’re supposed to have evidence-led policy formulation,” says Mike Levi, professor of criminology at Cardiff University, “but it often doesn’t happen in the drugs area.”

At the conferences Levi attends, the argument has shifted. “The question of a more rational drug policy is certainly being debated. There aren’t many old-fashioned zealots for the old methods of drug control even in the police, who are more open to change than recent home secretaries. But however good an idea it might be in the abstract it would take a more mature political and media conversation about it before it is likely to ­happen. Always keep ahold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse, that’s where we are now.”

In Britain, with its top-down system of government, a notionally left-of-centre but illiberal administration and a hysterical press, reform is improbable, although Gordon Brown recently had a brief meeting with Danny Kushlick, from the pro-legalisation group Transform. But there is a new atmosphere in the US, where the change in emphasis in ­Washington is enough to allow initiatives to come from below.

Already, dope-­smoking is de facto legal in California thanks to the lifting of the ban on medical marijuana. Purchase requires a prescription – but anyone who wants a joint but can’t find a Californian medic who thinks it will help backache just isn’t trying. This system may well spread.

Strangely, all this is happening just as Holland, the country that has been out on a limb for years with its coffee-shop culture, is beginning to row backwards. Once again, though, it may well be an anomaly. The Dutch are starting to tire of their exceptionalism and the drugs tourism that has resulted, just as they have tired of their liberal immigration policies. And the coffee shops have fallen foul of the indoor-smoking taboo.

Drug use generally in Holland seems to be low. But then you can prove almost anything with selective use of drug statistics: it is also low in ­Sweden, which is surprisingly stern. The main source for these stats is the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which maintains a huge bureaucracy to fight the drug problem, or at least to collect astonishingly detailed statistics: 3.8 per cent of Scots aged 15-64 use cocaine every year; 21.5 per cent of the same cohort of Ghanaians use cannabis; opium prices in the ­Phongsaly and Huaphanh provinces of Laos range between $556 and $744 per kilo … You might think that, knowing all this, they might be able to do something.

The UNODC’s executive director, Antonio Maria Costa, has been the chief proponent of continued prohibitionism. But, even as he introduced his 2009 report which, as ever, trumpeted evidence of success, he seemed a little rattled, repeating the new White House line about treatment rather than enforcement while warning that legalisation would be “a historic ­mistake”. He went on: “Proponents of legalisation can’t have it both ways. A free market for drugs would unleash a drug epidemic, while a regulated one would create a parallel criminal market. Illicit drugs pose a danger to health. That’s why drugs are, and must remain, controlled.”

Of course drugs need to be controlled, just as alcohol, tobacco, firearms, prescription drugs, food additives and indeed UN bureaucrats with massive budgets need to be controlled. But the whole point is that illicit drugs are not controlled.

The international ­pretence of ­prohibition sees to that. One of the major arguments advanced for continuing the ban on ­cannabis is that the currently available strains of the drug do not offer the gentle highs of the hippie years but are ­intensively cultivated and far more potent, with potentially serious ­psychological effects. The analysis is correct, according to my stoner friends. But the logic is 180 degrees wrong. Imagine a total ban on tobacco, which is no longer so unthinkable.

Among the consequences would be an immediate return to the unfiltered full-strength gaspers of the 1950s, just as American alcohol prohibition produced moonshine. One benign ­consequence of drug legalisation would be that users would have a ­guarantee of quality and strength/mildness: an end to heroin flavoured with brick dust (many believe adulteration is the real killer), and the type of ­marijuana they actually want.

But the case for legalisation is not about allowing baby-boom couples to enjoy a joint after a dinner party without drawing the curtains or being obliged to visit a dodgy bloke called Dave. Decriminalisation or even legalising cannabis on its own would achieve little. Something more radical is required.

The crucial issue concerns the supply chain: the way prohibition has enriched and empowered gangsters, corrupt officials and indeed wholly corrupt narco-states across the planet. It was a point made ­eloquently by the Russian economist Lev Timofeev, when interviewed by Misha Glenny for his book about global organised crime, McMafia. ­

“Prohibiting a market does not mean destroying it,” ­Timofeev said. What it means is placing a “dynamically developing market under the total control of criminal corporations”. He called the present situation a threat to world civilisation, which international public opinion had failed to grasp.

Proper reform means legitimising production and supply, precisely so it can be controlled. Would it unleash a drug epidemic worse than the one we now have? Well, it would be an unusual child of the 1960s who did not mark the moment with a celebratory joint. But the novelty would soon wear off. And from then on, the places where it is easiest to obtain drugs would no longer be the inside of jails and inner-city school playgrounds.

Imagine a situation – as John Ashton started to do at Carlisle ­Racecourse – where all drugs were sold in pharmacies licensed for the purpose. ­Taxation could be set at a level that brought in revenue but still made ­illegal dealing uncompetitive. For the more dangerous and addictive drugs there would be compulsory medical supervision. Identity checks and strict record-keeping would be required. There would be laws (which could ­actually be enforced) against advertising, adulteration, use in public, ­driving under the influence and supply to minors.

In what way would that be worse than the present situation?

Matthew Engel is a regular contributor to FT Weekend Magazine

We should abandon the fantasy of a drug free world and start taking responsibility for regulation. If you really want to control who grows coca, who produces cocaine, who sells it and for how much, who can take it, and how much they pay for it, create a framework that is logical, accountable and adjustable.

Still not convinced? Consider the declining popularity of tobacco smoking. High taxation, credible education programmes and effective treatment programmes work – a legal ban on smoking would not. Why should cocaine be treated any differently?

From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/486fb0d8-7ca3-11de-a7bf-00144feabdc0.html

Since Health Direct posted on Feb 24, 2009 High Stakes- Spice legal highs from the lab
we have consistently recieved high levels of readership.

Indeed Labour's incompetent hypocracy has been frequently highlighted by Health Direct.

On Aug 02, 2006 we posted: Risks of taking drugs compared- Scientific review of dangers of drugtaking- we reproduced the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society. It was devised by government advisers - then ignored by labour ministers because of its controversial findings.